Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council extends tax-relief application deadline and approves three hardship abatements
Summary
Cache County extended the deadline for certain property tax relief filings to Nov. 30 and reviewed three hardship applications: one was denied for noncompliance; two were approved at recommended abatement levels (38% and 50%).
The Cache County Council approved the tax-administration office's annual request to extend the filing window for certain property tax-relief applications to Nov. 30, and acted on three individual hardship requests brought by the tax administration supervisor.
Why this matters: The county's extension lets residents submit applications later in the year; individual abatements reduce tax bills for qualifying low-income or disabled residents and are income- and household-based.
Diana Schafer, tax administration supervisor, told the council that state law allows the council to extend the county's deadline (commonly Sept. 1) to a later date; the office requested Nov. 30 so staff can process applications and close the roll in December. The council voted to extend the filing deadline to Nov. 30.
The council then considered three hardship applications. Case ending in "46" was recommended for denial due to noncompliance: the applicant did not provide required financial information and there were two other adults in the household (county tax relief is household-income based). The council voted to support the recommendation and deny that application.
Two other cases were approved as recommended. Case ending in "0015" (a long-standing approved applicant with serious disabilities and low income) was approved at a 38% abatement. Case ending in "0012" (a disabled individual with low annual income, reported around $14,000) was approved at a 50% abatement.
Actions taken: The council approved the filing-extension to Nov. 30, denied the noncompliant application (ending in 46) and approved the two hardship abatements at the recommended percentages.
The tax administration supervisor framed the approval decisions as consistent with prior-year practice for those applicants who had been previously approved.
